Should we sterilize teenage girls? - Page 3

JennyPiccolo · 19th February 2008, 9:38am

This is absolute DAILY MAIL SHITE, against every basic principle of decent humanity in this country. Enforced sterilisation happens in third world countries and only serves to objectify, humiliate and degrade women. I can't believe we're even arguing about it.

The only way to cut teenage pregnancies is to lower the age of consent and actually talk to our fucking weans. You never know, they might learn something.

**djtoast** · 19th February 2008, 10:19am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JennyPiccolo

lower the age of consent and actually talk to our fucking weans.

and the ones that are still just considering it.

Devastator · 19th February 2008, 1:11pm

Wahey!

the.definitive · 19th February 2008, 2:05pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fallenblackrose

In terms of hormonal contraceptives in relation to breast cancer, its a lot safer these days with a lower oestrogen

rogesteron ratio,. hormonal involvement in breast cancer is (as far as the crappy half alseep notes i took tell me) related to overexposure of oestrogen and under exposure of progesterone.

.

Surely the long term effects of the pill/ injection/ coil aren't known if you were to go about sterilising "12 -17" year olds? Since yer not allowed the pill till you're 16 anyway, on the basis that you shouldn't be getting pumped before then?

fallen_nemesis · 19th February 2008, 2:32pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhöna of the Rhein

hmmm. well the pregancy rate may fall, but you can bet your arse that the STD rate will go up.

that was my first thought actually. Loads of girls thinking it was ok to have unprotected sex now they couldn't get pregnant

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammer

I don't know about the non-oral contraceptives, but there was some stuff in the media about 10 years ago about one form of the pill possibly causing increased rates of breast cancer in a minority of women.
Not sure what ever happened about that - I'm pretty sure there was a court case about it though.

There is also quite a long list of short term/possible side effects and recorded reactions to the various forms of contraception, which can last quite a long time.

tbh the side effects are no worse than most medications (ie feeling a bit queasy, throwing up, headaches.) Most prescribed medication have far worse. If it happens it simply means it's not for you and they's prescribe you something else.

The cancer risk isn't nearly as bad as people scaremongering would have you believe either. Any doctor I've been to has mentioned it and explained it fully and asked if you still want it prescribed, so I can imagine most women are fairly aware.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devastator

People can react badly to contraceptives, but it's generally stuff like non-stop periods for a year - not INSTANT DEATH or anything.

indeed, I've heard some horrendous stories about stuff like that from girls who get their contraceptives via injection.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emo_Sue

That's common knowledge...I knew that long before i started medical studies.
To sterilize teenage girls would be a breech of people's freedom ...Well that's what some good doer would argue.
Better sex education in schools would be the solution But then again you can only teach the one who is interested in learning And the other lot you are just wasting you're time cause there going to go and get pregnant anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the.definitive

Surely the long term effects of the pill/ injection/ coil aren't known if you were to go about sterilising "12 -17" year olds? Since yer not allowed the pill till you're 16 anyway, on the basis that you shouldn't be getting pumped before then?

your post is a bit inaccurate on a few fronts. You ARE allowed the pill before you're 16, and not just the mini pill either. Combined pills like Microgynon 30 are commonly prescribed to girls that experience extremem period pain. Not just normal cramp where you have to take painkillers, actual full blown throwing up and passing out from the pain kind of period pain. I was prescribed it at about the age of 14 for this reason. I basically had to take 3 days off school a month otherwise.

it's actually pretty safe for those under 30 that aren't smokers or at risk of DVT

That being said there's plenty of cases of women who are in their 40s still taking the pill.

Second generation pills like Microgynon etc having been around since the 60s / 70s.

As big bawkuki already stated anyway, the increased risk if breast cancer is incredibly minute, and it does decrease your risk of other types of cancers. Come off the pill and after a few years the risks are back to what they were before.

I personally reckon more sex education would be a good start at adressing the problem. In particular addressing the methods of contraception available more fully than they do in schools when you reach 16. The second talk I had at 16, we learned how to put condoms on a stick thing and told about the pill in most general of senses. More info about things like the difference between types of pills, the patch, the injection, the coil, would all have been brilliant. I can think of a lot of people my age that still couldn't tell you the difference between types of pill or anything about the implant, coil or patch etc.

GPs in a lot of cases don't really keep upto date with contraception either and simply prescibe Microgynon as bog standard (i think it's something like 6 or 7 out of every 10 women on the pill take microgynon). I've asked my GP about the implant and patch etc and their info has been pretty scant. I was also told it wasn't something they proactively prescribed or offered for many reasons, one being cost.

Go the somewhere that deals with it everyday though like the Sandyford for instance and they fall over backwards trying to educate you and help you pick a pill that best suits yourself and mention about other types of contraception.

Maybe having a representative from there go into school, I'd say to talk to girls over 16 would be ace. Under 16 and you run the risk of being demonised by parents, school and the media for encouraging young girls to have underage sex

the.definitive · 19th February 2008, 2:46pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by fallen_nemesis

your post is a bit inaccurate on a few fronts. You ARE allowed the pill before you're 16, and not just the mini pill either. Combined pills like Microgynon 30 are commonly prescribed to girls that experience extremem period pain. Not just normal cramp where you have to take painkillers, actual full blown throwing up and passing out from the pain kind of period pain. I was prescribed it at about the age of 14 for this reason. I basically had to take 3 days off school a month otherwise.

My post wasn't inaccurate, it was a question. I also had to go on the pill to control painful cramps which had me passing out in the toilets at work, and even at that stage I was strongly encouraged by my GP to try everything else, the pill was a last resort. I'd have thought as you're still technically growing up between the ages of 12 - 16 prescriping anything to do hormones would be a bad idea, I'm surprised to find out it doesn't actually have an effect.
I don't think I'd ever be quite comfortable with the idea of someone as young as 12 taking the pill, no matter how much I was told it was safe.

MarkMono · 19th February 2008, 2:49pm

If the alternative is a 12yr old pregnant girl, then it seems like the better of two bad options.

Of course we shouldn't sterilise teenage girls, silly Daily Mail, but contraceptive measures should be and are availible to anyone.

Which makes the entire premise of this thread utterly pointless I guess.

Devastator · 19th February 2008, 2:59pm

They're free too.

yummy mummy · 19th February 2008, 3:17pm

As the mother of a 12 year old girl, I'd have her sterilised tomorrow if I could. As a rational sentient member of the human race, which I am occasionally, of course I consider it a ridiculous idea.

fallen_nemesis · 19th February 2008, 3:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by the.definitive

My post wasn't inaccurate, it was a question. I also had to go on the pill to control painful cramps which had me passing out in the toilets at work, and even at that stage I was strongly encouraged by my GP to try everything else, the pill was a last resort. I'd have thought as you're still technically growing up between the ages of 12 - 16 prescriping anything to do hormones would be a bad idea, I'm surprised to find out it doesn't actually have an effect.
I don't think I'd ever be quite comfortable with the idea of someone as young as 12 taking the pill, no matter how much I was told it was safe.

my apologies then, the way you worded the bit about not being allowed the pill till you're 16 anyway came across as the fact statement and the bit after the obvious question.

I still stand by everything I said though.

tbh the use of things like fluoxetine (an antidepressant) in kids of the same age worries me way more than the thought of them taking something like the mini-pill does. Drugs like that have far more horrendous side effects and can be used in folk this young for things like OCD and bulimia as well as their more common use.

**Shannow** · 19th February 2008, 3:34pm

I think offering it confidentially for young folks is a good idea, but without some really good program of education behind it, the std rate is going to go through the roof.

MarkMono · 19th February 2008, 3:37pm

I don't get the connection, why would safeguarding teenagers against unwanted pregnancy make them more vulnerable to STD/I's?

Am I missing something?

the.definitive · 19th February 2008, 3:42pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkMono

I don't get the connection, why would safeguarding teenagers against unwanted pregnancy make them more vulnerable to STD/I's?

Am I missing something?

Because teenagers are daft, and would think "I can now have sex whenever I want because I won't get pregnant", ditch condoms altogether because they think they're safe and spread more STDs thorugh unprotected sex.

Which I totally agree WOULD happen.

**Shannow** · 19th February 2008, 3:46pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by the.definitive

Because teenagers are daft, and would think "I can now have sex whenever I want because I won't get pregnant", ditch condoms altogether because they think they're safe and spread more STDs thorugh unprotected sex.

Which I totally agree WOULD happen.

Go straight to the top of the class.

The 'it'll never happen to me factor.

MarkMono · 19th February 2008, 3:48pm

I'm sure there are people that stupid, but I doubt its confined to teenagers.

By the time I was in 1st or 2nd year most of the girls my age were educated throughly on the subject of contraception and the necessity of condoms. I did grow up in the big bad city, but I find it hard to believe that this is all that uncommon. Also I'm pretty sure even teenagers are worried about Aids as well as pregnancy. The rather misguided "It'll never happen to me." attitude (Mainly prevalent in guys I've noticed.) surely applies to both consequences.

Given our previously mentioned underage drinking and sex statistics in comparison with the rest of Europe shouldn't it be obvious that treating teenagers like they're idiots is not working.

Still, why expect this generation of adults to be any brighter than the last one.